State of the Union
 

I'm suprised there isn't a thread about this already. So, what do you think?

I felt that it was alright. It is kind of scary to see how much the two parties are distancing themselves from key issues that define our country (foreign policy, economics, social issues, etc). Yeah, there will always be some points that people won't see eye to eye on, but it seems that both parties keep getting further and further away. It was totally aparent when Bush said something about Congress blocking his tax cuts last year, and then the Democrats stood up and cheered. I did not expect anything like that.

The Democrat's Response speech was fairly good. It stayed pretty moderate for the most part.

when it cut to the crowd, whenever bush stopped speaking and the republicans clapped (there was so much clapping) the democrats wouldnt even stand up, i thought that was pretty cold and really shows how divided our country is.

i think its reached a point that people of opposing parties, even if they agree with the person from the other side, will just disagree because of their party

"The U.S is addicted to foreign oil"

got that fucking right.

Sheehan got kicked out of that place and then said...

[quote:69cef]"I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government," Sheehan wrote.[/quote:69cef]

so move bitch.

[quote="Falco*":c3d95]when it cut to the crowd, whenever bush stopped speaking and the republicans clapped (there was so much clapping) the democrats wouldnt even stand up, i thought that was pretty cold and really shows how divided our country is.

i think its reached a point that people of opposing parties, even if they agree with the person from the other side, will just disagree because of their party[/quote:c3d95]

that happens every year, both ways, it's kind of a rude tradition.

Sheehan is right

Remember...Hitler didn't allow any negative remarks towards him either in Nazi Germany.

America always preeches that they ALLOW you to say what you want about government.

And hell it was just a shirt...is it so hard to IGNORE things?

I missed it, RL got in the way. As far as Sheehan goes there is a time and a place for everything, including protests. The State of the Union Address is not one of them. She should have been removed. She is an attention whore, isnt her 15 minutes up yet?


THIS JUST IN: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006 ... shtml?s=ic

"Peace mom" Cindy Sheehan is so angry that she wasn't allowed to disrupt last night's State of the Union address, that she intends to file a lawsuit claiming she was brutalized by Capitol Hill police who suppressed her first amendment freedoms.


Sheehan also contends she suffered emotional trauma, complaining, "I am so upset and sore it is hard to think straight."

That woman is so sketchy. She really is an attention whore.

On foxnews.com's article, it says:
""I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress," Sheehan wrote. "I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later.""
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183392,00.html

I wonder what the truth is once this all unfolds.

[quote=c312]that happens every year, both ways, it's kind of a rude tradition.[/quote:a5aa4]lol

yeah, whatc312 said. It's a tradition for that to happen.

The SOTU is useless. If you want to make it more interesting, make it once a month, ban clapping, and allow questions to be asked of the President. Other then that it's just another "campaign" speech.

The State of the Union Address is required by the Constitution of the United States.

lol

No fucking shit, doesn't mean it's useful.

Sure it is. And I only said that because you can't just change a constitutional requirement around frivolously(sp?)

What does it accomplish?

And frivolous is adding and amendment to ban gay marriage, not making the President more open for questioning.